31 October 2006 3:51 PM

Lesbians, blockages and the debate that needs to be had but nearly didn't happen

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

One of the most important subjects in British politics - and one of the most interesting - is the future of the Tory Party. Is it finished? Should it adopt the ideas of the liberal consensus? Should it continue to represent the views of conservative-minded voters even if this leads to it being derided and misrepresented in the liberal media?

Yet it is almost impossible to discuss these issues in many places. The near-universal assumption, among conventional commentators, is that David Cameron's changes are unquestionably good, that he is a breath of fresh air, and that the party is on the road to recovery.

You will very rarely hear any dissent from this view anywhere on British broadcasting or in much of the press either. The only doubt that is allowed to be expressed is the crass left-liberal belief that David Cameron and his supporters are really secret Thatcherites, concealing their tax-cutting teeth behind a false and painted smile.

And so, one effect of the Cameron change is that those who hold to conservative opinions on culture, morals, national independence and justice have been pushed even further towards the edge of the national table. I have long been used to getting the so-called 'Mussolini Seat' on TV and radio discussion programmes, where I sit on the far right of the platform (sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically).

But thanks to the Tory Party's urgent move to the liberal left, I find that my opinions are now treated as being beyond the frontier of civilised discussion. Although I am a constitutionalist and a supporter of the rule of law, I get a sense that the BBC now increasingly feels free to corral me in the outer darkness with the bigots. Even when I get on the air there's often a certain amount of amateur psychoanalysis, about how 'angry' I am, which is not applied to any opponents I might have. We'll see how this develops.

The important point here is that if the 'official' political parties declare that the 'centre ground' (defined as the narrow area within which they are prepared to permit disagreement) has moved substantially to the left (the effect of the Tory revolution) then more and more people are excluded from the 'centre ground' and offered submission and silence as their only option inside the democratic process. I fear the consequences of this.

But back to the great debate which was held in London on the Tory Party last week. The excellent organisation 'Intelligence Squared' did need to be persuaded at the beginning that it was worth discussing - but once they had agreed they moved with their usual skill. A motion was selected: "The Tory Party is no longer conservative". Two fine speakers were found to oppose it, my old friends Charles Moore and Michael Gove, both proper old-fashioned broad-minded people who can disagree in a civilised fashion. The Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee, I suspect rather gleefully, agreed to chair this falling-out among her foes.

The distinguished journalist Andrew Alexander agreed to speak alongside me. Tickets went on sale, and sold out so that all 800 seats were filled and people were calling up asking for late cancellations till shortly before the event began. I don't think this came from a desire to listen to me, but from a desire to hear a proper discussion of a near-taboo subject.

Now, this wasn't a squabble in an upstairs room in a pub, and the speakers weren't obscure. Yet apart from a cogent item on BBC Radio 4's 'World Tonight' and a thoughtful mention in the 'Sunday Times' by Minette Marrin (of which more later), the mainstream media didn't give it so much as a diary paragraph. The only independent account of it available was written by Graeme Archer for the ever-fascinating website 'Conservative Home' (part of its entry for Wednesday October 25). Mr Archer is no friend of mine, but I strongly recommend you to read his description of the event. He and 'Conservative Home' are to be commended for making the effort, which has led to an interesting discussion there.

One or two other rather fascinating things need to be recorded here. Andrew Alexander withdrew just two weeks before the debate, leaving us to try to find a replacement. This was astonishingly difficult, and I wish I could tell you some of the names of those who were approached and - though they didn't disagree with the motion itself - wouldn't do it. Hywel Williams, who did agree, then fell ill at the last minute and the delightful Jeremy O'Grady, who is in fact one of the chiefs of 'Intelligence Squared' stepped in with much grace and spoke very well. But I think it fair to say that Jeremy, while witty and eloquent, did not and could not speak from the viewpoint of a conservative-minded person abandoned by his party.

My own point (which Graeme Archer's account largely leaves out) was that it was quite understandable that a conservative party should accept changes brought about by its rivals - elements of the welfare state, for instance, and some other actions of the 1945-51 and even the 1964-70 Labour governments - though the Wilson era was actually the first real outing of 'New' ideological Labour, even if much of its work was done through supposedly 'Private' Bills.

I don't personally regard nationalisation as a left-right issue ( Charles I nationalised the Post Office, Neville Chamberlain nationalised electricity generation and I personally would renationalise the railways tomorrow if I could). Nor can I see why a conservative movement should object to all elements of a welfare state. A country should look after its poor people. The difficulties arise when you try to decide who benefits and who doesn't. There's also the question of how best to organise it, and whether national or local institutions work better.

But if that conservative movement accepts more fundamental changes - the surrender of national sovereignty to a foreign power, the removal of the concept of personal responsibility from the justice system, the advance of a cultural and moral revolution which destroys the fortresses of privacy and weakens marriage, then it is digging its own grave. The things it claims to defend will be destroyed irrevocably by such reforms. It will be reduced to governing a country whose external and internal politics are hostile to everything it officially stands for. It will be in office, but not in power.

I was the first person that evening to make the point that conservatism is a disposition, not a dogma - but I went on to say that the Labour Party, which in its first half-century was broadly patriotic and socially conservative - was now highly dogmatic and in the grip of culturally revolutionary ideologues. Such people cannot be effectively opposed by those who don't understand what they're up to.

Now, I have no idea what Charles and Michael expected me to say. I'm never entirely sure that my Tory critics have any argument that goes much deeper than 'Sit down, you're rocking the boat'.

And Michael, most regrettably, was held up unavoidably at the Commons for an important vote and didn't hear my opening speech. But I felt they didn't respond to these points at all. I was portrayed as an inflexible reactionary unwilling to countenance any change since the 1950s, which is exactly and specifically what I hadn't said and don't believe.

Actually I'm always portrayed in this way, part of the slithering slag-heap of deadening abuse and misrepresentation which the Left shovel on to their critics. Now I note the same criticism coming from people who were once my allies against the Left.

I loathed much about that time, as should be clear to anyone from my chapter comparing the funerals of Winston Churchill and Diana Spencer in 'The Abolition of Britain' in which I describe the dreary, dirty, unpleasantly austere, inconvenient way of life of the period, drawn from my own memory. But I also mention the good things we lost at the same time. This is the essential choice the conservative needs to make, distinguishing between change for the better and change for the worse, rather than welcoming all change as good, with the simpering joy of the undiscriminating 'progressive'.

And Michael sought to portray me as a sort of fanatic, much more in the tradition of Cromwell's Puritans than of Prince Rupert's cavaliers. Well, there’s some truth in this. I suspect Rupert's boys were all too much like the Bullingdon lot at Oxford, all booze and horses, not my sort (and not Michael's either - I suspect, they'd have chucked him into the nearest duckpond for belonging to the wrong class). I'm pretty certain that my West Country nonconformist ancestors would have been among the Ironsides, singing Psalms as they clove righteously through the dissipated, hungover Royalist ranks. But actually, I've always been torn by the Civil War and have never, since I first encountered that astonishing story aged around nine, been able to make up my mind between the Wrong but Romantic Cavaliers and the Right but Repulsive Roundheads. Hence my enthusiasm for the Glorious Revolution, when Cavalier squire and Ironside veteran made common cause against continental-style despotism and the sale of the country to foreign interests.

I simply didn't think the other side answered the charge. Minette Marrin rather agreed with me, although she couldn't bring herself to mention my name and referred to me as 'the other side ' as in "there were a lot of awkward questions from the other side that were left unanswered". She also quoted Charles as having said "trust is much more important than precisely what you are saying". This I completely disagree with and I am surprised to see such a man saying it.

I think this country could do with a Party which said very clearly what it meant to do, explained why and then did it. All this personal trust in telegenic individuals is too presidential to me, and leads to sad (and damaging) disappointment when the individual involved turns out to have the usual clay feet. I also think that people are getting sick of it.

I should also mention the joke that seems to have upset Graeme Archer. Actually, it was an attempt to sum up the problem in a parable, which will seem leaden when written down, but was appreciated by some of the audience. I don't guarantee it's word for word. Imagine, I said, that you discovered that your drains were blocked, and rang up an organisation we'll call Dyno-Bod to avoid any complaining letters about misuse of trademarks.

Within minutes, a van screeches to a halt outside. It's got 'DYNO-BOD' written on the side as usual but you notice it's painted bright pink rather than the fierce orange you're expecting. Never mind. It's a perfectly nice pink and organisations change their images. Then a young woman gets out. She's a Lesbian. How do you know she's a Lesbian? Because she's wearing a T-shirt saying "I'm a Lesbian. Have you got a problem with that?"

You invite her in and start explaining about the blockage, and ask her how long she thinks it will take to get rid of it. She replies "Get rid of it? Whatever do you mean? We don't get rid of blockages any more. We help you come to terms with them".

This seemed to sum up the Tory Party's attitude towards the many problems which voters once looked to it to help them solve, which is, more or less,' Can't you shut up? Mass immigration and crime and penal taxation are so over as subjects these days. Can't you just move on?' And it also mocks that party's embracing of political correctness, especially the 'A-list' encouragement of candidates who are openly homosexual, which is presented as tolerance but is in fact the acceptance of a controversial, unconservative radical equality agenda.

Well, my side lost, though we were not crushed and - in a parallel internet vote - we won. Did we lose the argument? I don't think so. Will it be debated again soon? I hope so. It certainly will be after the Tories lose the next election, and with even more vigour if they lose it as badly as I hope they do.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Even worse than the misuse of the English language is the way it is now spoken by the young. While watching one particular news programme an interview was given to a British sportswoman who was world champion in her field. After a few moments of trying to follow her mumbled monotone I pressed the subtitle button on my handcontrol. I was highly amused to find that this function also had problems deciphering what she was saying as one phrase came out as 'the gaza strip' when she was still talking of her particular sport.

A change from Tony Blair would be ‘unquestionable good’. But kill joys will be quick to point out that it takes only Gordon Brown to move into Number Ten to achieve this end. Besides which, electors are only on an apparent high, because they welcome the opportunity to have their ‘cake and eat'.

Of course and on the cynical side, they can’t wait to see the back Tony Blair (apart form the fact his rear is what’s been in all our faces anyhow for last ten years).
On the downside they dread like the plague, handing everything over to the evil Tory empire, which (on the plus side) is looking an increasingly attractive proposition under the command of this ‘new fangled’ breed of Tory called a ‘Cameronite’.

As you Peter have already coined the term ‘Blameron’ it is this term behind which lurks true philosophy Cameronism. It will be Blameron that springs from the Green should voters relent and ‘vote blue’ as this is what is up for exposition albeit gradually so.

We must not let Cameron’s new tree logo fool anyone let alone everyone. In reality it represents ‘Dave’s wood’ which is quasi-utopian nestle of tree-swings set aside with the ulterior aim of attracting a flood of liberal elitist surrender monkeys. Who will have few qualms if any surrendering to everything that is Blairist.

In our post-democratic society it is no wonder that the state broadcaster is politically correct. I use the term in its original Marxist-Leninist meaning: to conform to the party line. Due to the domination the BBC has in the industry its cultural bias means that being seen, as anything other than “left leaning” is not a good career move.

Blair’s legacy will not be Iraq but the destruction of the trust in government democracy is dependent on.

If you are given immigration statistics from Migration Watch and the Home Office which carries the greater credibility?

The Macpherson, Hutton and for other reasons, Saville Inquiries have undermined trust in judicial inquiries.

The Human Rights Act has given enormous power to judges: but destroyed their credibility.

I don’t agree with you that we should stop voting. I think people should not think they are asked to choose the winning candidate just express a view. Just ask yourself which candidate comes closest to your views. Unless you stand yourself, none will hold all of them.

Unlike 99.9% of the electorate I do not accept the very obviously biased 'information dished out by the media (all sorts) - this is why I joined the BNP - to 'find out for myself' what it was all about. My conclusions are it is the nearest thing on the party political spectrum that equates to a a PATRIOTIC BRITISH party. No my friends it is NOT racist, unless of course you regard pro English/Scottish & Welsh as being racist. I do NOT regard this as being racist therefore I am very much in favour of the BNP which, along with UKIP actually speaks up for MY people (incidentally these are the people who BUILT the country over a period of 1,000 years - who FOUGHT for it and who DIED to preserve it. I make absolutely NO apologies for that mindset - particularly to the MARXIST Politically Correct morons and idiots seeking to suck the British lifesblood out of what used to be OUR FAIR LAND before it was swamped by the worlds riff-raff! - for which you can thank our utterly useless and treacherous self-seeking politicians on ALL sides of Parliament. A PLAGUE on ALL their houses!

Peter, I am absolutely at one with you about being torn by the English Civil War – in retrospect, though I am a monarchist, I would support Cromwell and the Ironsides now. To be a member of the New Model Army one had to be genuinely pious and sincere as well as a good fighter. Charles 1 proved weak, vacillating and treacherous in breaking his own word, and so was very much in the Blair/Brown/Cameron mould.

Re: the routing of Conservatism as you describe, I had a little revelation today as to why the most Left Wing government in the history of this country has prevailed despite the unprecedented personal wealth and consumption that exists now – far more money lolling around than in the ‘Thatcherite’ 80s. I live in a typical rural village in Kent – that is to say virtually all the local shops have closed down and a disproportionate amount of the population have 2 or 3 cars. They tend to live in what would have been farm workers cottages (with no garages) and so park all down the lane. They talk endlessly about their second homes (Spain or Turkey), have expensive flat screen TVs (uncritically imbibing propaganda like ‘Spooks’ and enjoying unfunny filth like ‘Little Britain’ as they actually have no critical faculty.) I call it ‘Labour Jujitsu’. The art of jujitsu being to use the weight of one’s opponents against themselves, the sheer weight of the decadence, greed, weakness and self indulgence of these people means that they can so very easily be bought and disregarded – the most obvious example being Prescott’s plans to concrete over the South East being so eagerly embraced by them for their pathetic personal profit.

I love your idea of a new party ‘which said very clearly what it meant to do, explained why and then did it.’ The whole current political and cultural establishment would hate that in the way that manipulative liars do hate truth tellers. They would be outraged that there was actually a genuine challenge to their lazy assumed supremacy. There would be actually no limit to the degree of hatred, viciousness, calumny and obscenity projected in the Cinema, art galleries, rock music and the printed media. Artless comparisons to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan would be routine and the Martin Rowsons and Gerald Scarfes would hurt their brains trying to twist the human body into cartoonic distortions that they thought looked hideous enough. Still, worth a try though.

Ever since Cameron came on the Tory scene it was obvious (to me) that he was the flip side of one, Anthony Blair, in other words he had been vetted and given the go-ahead (like Blair) to hijack the Tory party in order to carry on the seamless (illusional) change to the Liberal consensus agenda.
The willingness of the Tories to conform could be gauged by their transparent compliant performance as an opposition to Her Majesties government, simply put, there is no opposition, for months they have sat on their hands allowing the government to carry on unopposed, they have banked their pay cheques under false pretences, to put it mildly - what the hell is going on?
Mr Hitchens says the Tories will surely lose the next election - I would doubt this assertion, in fact I'll wager a couple of bob Cameron will be our next prime minister, and as a rider, I predict he will last no more than a couple of years - as soon the gullible voters realise they've been had,(again) we will be in a whole new ball game.
As with New Labours millions of 'old' traditional voters being jettisoned by Blair, so it will be with traditional Tory voters, there is no place for them to go. Then, a situation will arise where democracy will grind to a halt (crisis) the Liberal consensus agenda will flounder but the programme will (somehow) continue to be steam rollered on. - This is as far as I can see, (mayhem) after that - all bets are off. BTW, I was more than a little intrigued to see (elsewhere) Mr. H. advising not to vote for the BNP. - Hmmm?

Peter I can see how that joke could be funny. Can you see how it doesn't need a lesbian in it to be so?
And I'm afraid you often do come across as very angry indeed. Every time I agree with you you scare me away a few minutes or paragraphs later.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.